Rebuts Weissman (2024) directly, titled “No evidence of systematic proximity ascertainment bias in early COVID-19 cases in Wuhan.” Argues the pattern Weissman identifies (unlinked cases living closer to the market than linked cases) is adequately explained by infections occurring outside residential neighborhoods (e.g. at work, or at the market itself for vendors/shoppers who don’t live nearby) plus ordinary stochasticity in a small sample, and disputes that Weissman’s proposed ascertainment mechanism matches how the original Wuhan case-finding was actually conducted.
relevance_note: the zoonosis-side direct answer to the ascertainment-bias critique; needed to weigh both sides of that specific dispute rather than taking either paper’s word for it.